# Justin Lecher j...@gentoo.org (5 Dec 2012)
# sci-libs/(lapack/blas)-altas will be removed due to
# fragile build and runtime behaviour #372323.
# Alternatives are sci-libs/lapack-reference sci-libs/blas-reference.
# Follow up package named sci-libs/atlas can be found in
# sci overlay and will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As many of us are aware the tree is growing to a size that is really
unacceptable for many. We have many packages that have excessive amounts
of versions laying around that are not used any more. Many of these
packages with excessive revisions most
El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 12:31 -0600, Jory A. Pratt escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As many of us are aware the tree is growing to a size that is really
unacceptable for many. We have many packages that have excessive amounts
of versions laying around that are not
2012/12/13 Jory A. Pratt anar...@gentoo.org:
As many of us are aware the tree is growing to a size that is really
unacceptable for many. We have many packages that have excessive amounts
of versions laying around that are not used any more. Many of these
packages with excessive revisions most
2012/12/13 Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com:
But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were
stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple testing
versions on top of that.
Who is the one to deterimine which one should go stable and which to get rid
of?
We
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were
stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple testing
versions on top of that.
Who is the one to deterimine which one
I think another good reason for treecleaning a package is if upstream for
the package stops supporting their package and recommends that you use
a new package. In this situation, once the new package hits stable,
there is really not a reason to keep the old package around. Instead,
any necessary
El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 13:10 -0600, William Hubbs escribió:
I think another good reason for treecleaning a package is if upstream for
the package stops supporting their package and recommends that you use
a new package. In this situation, once the new package hits stable,
there is really not
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico:
Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just
the same. Except for the fact that it will be a bit cleaner, not require
EAPI=5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few
people.
Sounds good
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico:
Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just
the same. Except for the fact that it will be a bit cleaner, not require
EAPI=5
On 13 December 2012 19:28, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 13:10 -0600, William Hubbs escribió:
I think another good reason for treecleaning a package is if upstream for
the package stops supporting their package and recommends that you use
a new package. In this
On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico:
Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just
the same. Except for the fact that it
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt anar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were
stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple
On 13 December 2012 17:57, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt anar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 06:24:30PM -0500, Jeff Horelick wrote:
On 13 December 2012 17:57, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt anar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 06:24 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
On 13 December 2012 17:57, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt
anar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for
them.
iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some embedded systems)
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
+1 , the ability to install older versions of software or legacy
software is one of the reasons I switched to Gentoo in the first
place. There is of course a point when these packages can no longer
be maintained, but
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:57:16PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
I am sure that some people find it very handy to have old gcc ebuilds
around. It might come in handy for testing.
Testhing what?
It doesn't matter if they can't compile the latest kernel. If someone
files a bug for that, it gets
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:07 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:57:16PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
I am sure that some people find it very handy to have old gcc ebuilds
around. It might come in handy for testing.
Testhing what?
Maybe to see if my code
William Hubbs schrieb:
For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for
them.
iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some embedded systems)
play best together.
I'm not sure how strong this argument is
William Hubbs posted on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:51:33 -0600 as excerpted:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are
# Sebastien Fabbro bicat...@gentoo.org (13 Dec 2012)
# Necessary removal to get rid of very unstable sci-libs/lapack-atlas
# Packages are in the science overlay
# until sci-libs/atlas replacement make it to the main tree
sci-astronomy/sextractor
sci-astronomy/scamp
signature.asc
Description:
Hi Folks!
There are a few packages that I'm no longer interested in maintaining:
media-gfx/mandelbulber (co maintained-by media-gfx, needs bump and some
opencl love)
net-irc/irssi-xmpp (stablereq pending #440864)
net-misc/identicurse (no bugs, no stable)
I'll drop myself in a week and assign to
On Thursday 13 December 2012 12:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane.
What?
I would argue, that stuff like gcc and some other system packages should be
kept forewer. One (working) version per SLOT is enough, but these should just
On Thursday 13 December 2012 21:25:59 Markos Chandras wrote:
We also have 720 packages listed as maintainer-needed[1] meaning
nobody is actually taking care of them.
And this number is pretty scary.
Scary how?
With over 15000 packages total by now (in only the official tree; or even
more, what
27 matches
Mail list logo
